Analysing Service Qnality in the Hospitality

Industry Using the SERVQUAL Model

FAROUK SALEH and CHRIS RYAN

This study reports an application in the hospitality industry of the

SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman, ZeithamI and
Berry. Although originally developed for application within the
financial services sector, the model is designed to measure those
components of service that generate satisfaction within five dimen-
sions. This study identified the existence of gaps between clients'
and management perceptions of attributes of the hotel, and
between client expectation and perception of the services offered.
It is argued that the existence of these gaps is a source of dissatisfac-
tion with services provided. Factor analysis identified five dimen-
sions explaining 78 per cent of variance, hut these differed from
the SERVQUAL model.

Service quality is an important determinant of success in attracting repeat

business for a hotel. While the reasons for the initial visit to a hotel may be
due to factors partly outside the control of management, the ability to
create a satisfactory experience for the guest will rest to a considerable
degree within the hands of both management and hotel staff. The pur-
pose of this article is therefore to describe a means by which that quality
of service provision can be measured, and thus in turn to develop a tool
available for management.

REVIEW OF ISSUES
The components of service have often been divided into three. Gronroos
[1984] entitles these components as being the technical, functional and
image qualities. As such it parallels the description of Lehtinen and
Lehtinen [1982], who also use a threefold categorisation. The physical
(technical) qualities are thus the actual visible components of the hotel.
Farouk Saleh is at the University of Saskatchewan College of Commerce, Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada S7N OWO.
Chris Ryan is al the Tourism and Recreation Studies Unit, Nottingham Business School.
Burton Street. Nottingham NGl 4BU. UK

The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3. (July 1991). pp. 324-343
PUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON
SERVICE OUALITY IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY 325

its rooms, reception area, etc.; the interactive service (functional) is the
expressive performance of the service, the nature of the greeting, the
care and attention given to the guest; while the third component is
the corporate (image) quality. Arguably the image of the hotel will be
derived in part from the technical and functional components of service,
allied with any marketing promotion that takes place. Equally, the
success of any marketing effort in the long term will not solely rest on the
initial numbers attracted to the hotel, but the ability of the hotelier to
convert first-time users into repeat users as far as is possible. It might also
be argued that the quality of the interactive service can, to at least some
extent, offset minor deficiencies in the physical component of the service
- indeed a guest's criteria of service might actually include the response
of the hotel to the problem that may have occurred. Thus, while the
technical problem should not happen, the fact that it was quickly rectified
when it did occur becomes a positive aspect in the guest's perception of
the hotel and its service. For many reasons therefore it can be argued that
of those components that generate the 'service mix', the most important
is 'expressive performance', or conviviality of the service.
The question thus arises, what are the components of the expressive
service? Parasuraman, ZeithamI and Berry [1985] identify ten factors.
These are:
1. Reliability - consistency of performance, doing it right the first time.
2. Responsiveness - willingness or readiness of employees to provide the
service.
3. Competence - possession of the required skills and knowledge neces-
sary to perform the task.
4. Access - approachability and eye contact.
5. Courtesy - politeness, respect, consideration and friendliness of con-
tact personnel.
6. Communication - keeping customers informed in a language they can
understand.
7. Credibility-trustworthiness, believability, honesty, and maintaining
the customers' best interests at heart.
8. Security - freedom from risk, danger or doubt.
9. Understanding/knowing the customer - making an effort to know the
customers' needs.
10. Tangibles - the physical evidence of service such as the appearance of
the personnel.
In a subsequent work the same authors [ZeithamI, Berry and Parasura-
man, 1988] tested the variables and reduced them tofivefactors: tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance (combining communication, credi-
326 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL
bility, security, competence and courtesy) and empathy (combining
understanding and knowing the customer with accessibility). Martin
[1986] adopts more of a systems approach in defining what is meant by
quality. Services, it is argued, consists of two segments, the procedural
and the convivial dimensions. Each service organisation maintains
systems to provide the service continuously and efficiently to the
customer. In consequence the system will permit a flow of services in such
a manner that no single part of the system is over-stretched, and delivers
the service at the time the client requires it. This delivery requires in turn
two further components. First, service exists through an anticipation of
customer's needs - the hotel guest need not ask for the menu in the
restaurant, it is there ready for use. Second, the service provision is
able to accommodate customer requests, that is, it possesses flexibility.
Such flexibility exists though the system possessing both communication
and feedback mechanisms, while the whole, in order to operate, requires
a method of supervision. Yet throughout each of these procedural
elements, the client will warm to the provider of the service through the
conviviality of the service, that is the customer reacts to the attitudes,
behaviours and verbal skills of the service provider. Martin thus pro-
gresses to define these standards of convivial service, and lists factors
such as attitude, body language, tone of voice, tact, the ability to 'name
names', i.e., identify, and so individualise the customer, attentiveness,
guidance, making the customer aware of existing alternatives that are
available to him or her. and problem-solving.
Despite the literature relating to the components and concepts of
service, to a significant degree past research has tended to concentrate on
the functional and procedural aspects of service, at least as far as hotels
have been concerned. Table 1 indicates the types of variables that have
been considered. Certainly some of the convivial aspects have been
studied, but as can be noted, out of thirty seven attributes identified, the
great majority are concerned with the tangible signs of the service.
With reference to the provision and receipt of service it might be said
that there are three groups involved: management, staff and customers.
Each might view the quality of service provision from independent
viewpoints, thus giving rise to differences of perception of the service.
In short, a series of gaps might arise between expectation and actual
provision, and between perception of the service on the part of service
provider and receiver.
The successful provision of a service begins with the ability of manage-
ment to assess the client's expectations correctly. Lewis and Klein [1987]
studied this gap by interviewing 23 upper-management staff of a 400-
bedroom hotel, and then asking the same questions of 116 guests staying
SERVICE QUALITY IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY 327

TABLE I
ATTRIBUTES MEASURED BY HOTEL STUDIES'

Attribute Author
Lewis Lewis Nightingale Moller Lewis Knutson
Pizam etal Klein
1981 1983 1985 1985 1988 1988
Actual price X X X X
Price/value X X X
Good Reputation X X
Prestige of hotel X X X
Location X X X
Safe parking nearby X X
Cleanliness of rooms/baths X X X X
Size of rooms/baths X X X X
X
Ouality of TV/radio X X
Comfort of bed X X X X
Decor/furnishing of rooms X
X X X
Exterior aesthetics X X X
VIP rooms/sections X X
Physical condition of X
rooms/baths X X X
Variety of services X X X
Promptness of services X X
Professionalism of all staff X X X X
Quick check-in/out X X X
Staff frietidliness X X X
VIP treatment X X
Quality of bar X X X
Restaurant food quality X X X
Room service available X X X
Restaurant service X X X
Year-round pool X X X
Sauna, steam bath,
exercise equipment X X X
Shops in hotel X X
Small amenities,
e.g., soap, mints X X
Quietness of room X X X X
Quietness of hotel X X X
Security of hotel X X X
Security of area X X X
Reservation system X X X X
Wake-up call service X
Plentiful towels X X
Valet parking service
Laundry service X

* Some of these attributes were not explicitly given these names in the individual studies,
and generalisations of terms have been adopted in order to review these studies in a
common frame.
328 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL

over a two-week period. Lewis and Klein concluded that management's

perception of guests' expectations were correct in 17 of 44 different hotel
attributes.
As a general rule, management believed that guests demanded more
than the guests in fact reported themselves as requiring, but on the other
hand, guests tended to value items such as staff friendliness and the
quietness of the hotel whereas management tended to overlook these
factors in their reporting. Nightingale [1985] reported that hotel staff
considered personal service an important consideration in a guest's
coffee break, but guests did not even mention this aspect. In a study of
financial service Parasuraman, ZeithamI and Berry [1985] found similar
discrepancies between management perception and guests' actual
expectation, and concluded:
In essence, service firms executives may not understand; 1) what
features connote high quality to consumers in advance, 2) what
features a service must have in order to meet customer needs, and 3)
what levels of performance on those features are needed to deliver
high-quality service.
The same researchers also indicate a potential cause of such discrepancies;
a significant one being the constraints imposed upon managers by market
conditions, company policies and available resources. Equally Garvin
[1987] would question the strength of management belief in the provision
of quality services in that busy schedules lead to routinisation processes.
Another factor relating to the process of customer expectation formation
is the communication process initiated by the company concerned.
Advertising campaigns help formulate expectation; equally the failure
to inform may lead to low expectation. Communication processes by
employees is also important: Parasuraman, ZeithamI and Berry [1985]
report the favourable impression created by an appliance repairman who
not only repaired the appliance, but explained what was wrong and how
such a fault could be repaired again in the future if it recurred.
Gronroos [1984] argues that the quality of service provided is subjected
to an evaluation process by which the consumer compares what is
received with expectation. Consequently, service quality is dependent
not only on provision but also on the nature of the expectation. Lewis and
Klein [ 1987] found with reference to hotels that while guests' expectation
on the tangible components of service are often exceeded, this is tiot
always the case in the expressive performance (i.e., the intangible
aspects). It can therefore be concluded, following Gronroos, that service
quality is thus diminished.
SERVICE QUALITY IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY 329
There are, of course, many problems involved in the assessment of
service provision, and arguably threshold effects exist. Clients may per-
ceive a service as being comparatively unimportant because it meets an
expected norm, but should the service be absent, the very fact of its
absence makes it important. Thus management may be right to place
importance upon the tangible components of the hotel in that the absence
of restaurants, good decor, etc., would be symbols of a poor service, but
the guests expect at least certain minimum provision for any category of
hotel, and thus in their assessment of good service the focus of their
attention shifts from the expected minimum to other considerations,
including staff attitudes. Such a viewpoint would be consistent with the
hierarchical structure of needs associated with the work of humanistic
psychologists such as Maslow. In that sense, attempts to measure the
quality of service must be aware of the changing nature of the cause of
the perception. Nonetheless, what Gronroos [1984] proposes is that
the difference between perceived provision and expectation is itself a
measure of satisfaction. Equally, it can be argued that the same applies to
the other 'perceptual gaps', and that these are effective measures of
quality, in that in the ideal environment guest expectations are high,
are correctly identified by management and are in fact met: that is, a
congruence occurs. The wider the gaps that exist, therefore, the less
satisfying does the position become.

OBJECTIVES QF THE RESEARCH

The objects of the current study were to use the following to measure
service quality:

1. the concept of gaps between expectation and perception of hotel

service;
2. thefivedimensions of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance
and empathy;
3. the concepts of the SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman,
ZeithamI and Berry [1985].

The service quality gaps to be measured were:

1. management perception of guest expectations and the actual expec-

tation of guests;
2. guest expectations and guest perceptions of the quality of service
provided;
330 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL

3. management perception of service delivery and guest perception of

the quality of that service;
4. management perception of service and delivery and guest expecta-
tions.

SERVQUAL was initially designed for the assessment of services

within the financial sector, and consists of a 22-item, seven-point Likert
Scale. However, not all of the questions were immediately applicable to a
hotel. However Martin [1986] proposes a 40-item scale in the assessment
of service within restaurants, and from this a number of questions were
selected and modified. Finally therefore, a 33-item, five-point Likert
Scale instrument was devised. On the scale, 1 scored as being the highest
response, while 5 indicated the greatest degree of dissatisfaction. A five-
point scale rather than a seven-point scale was chosen for a number
of reasons, one being that it became possible to compare reliability
coefficients with other research using five-point Likert Scales.
The questionnaire had three sections, the first related to expectations
of service quality, the second to the quality received/provided, and the
third was designed to elicit demographic data from the respondents. The
items of the first and second sections were the same, but the opening
rubric differed in that respondents were asked what they expected with
regard to each item, while In the second section they reported their
perception of the quality of service received on each item.
Within the first two sections the research instrument sought to reflect
the basic premise behind SERVQUAL, and questions appropriate to
each of the five dimensions were selected. In the selection of the
questions attention was paid to the original SERVQUAL questionnaire,
the scale devised by Martin, and a 40-item scale developed by Saleh and
de Cuadro (1989] for a study of Spanish hotels in the Costa del Sol.
The sample was drawn from guests staying at a downtown 3(K)-bed-
room hotel in a western Canadian city possessing a population of ap-
proximately 200,000. The hotel was of a good four-star standard, a
member of an international hotel chain, and representative of hotels of its
type. The questionnaires were completed by the respondents in the
presence of two researchers, and guests could ask questions and comment
as they saw fit. The sample of 200 was comparable in size with other
studies undertaken and was estimated to be accurate at a confidence level
of 93 per cent with a standard error of 7 per cent (based on previous
research the standard deviation was assumed to be 0.67 for this calcula-
tion). The survey was conducted over a four-week period during the
evenings in July and August 1989. The response rate was just over 85 per
cent. Guests were generally keen to have their opinions ehcited.
SERVICE QUALITY IN THE HQSPITALITY INDUSTRY 331

and when they felt they could not spare the time tended to be quite
apologetic. The guests were approached on a stratified random sampling
basis based on data provided by the hotel about the characteristics of its
clientele. In addition to the guests, 17 management staff also responded
to the questionnaire and interview times lasted from between 8-40
minutes with a mode of 15-20 minutes. Generally management were
happy to talk about problems after the completion of the questionnaire.
The sample of management is of course small, but there is no reason to
suppose that they were in any way unrepresentative of hotel management
for such hotels in either their responses, comments or concerns.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE OF GUESTS

Business guests dominated the sample in that just under 60 per cent of the
respondents described the purpose of their visit as either being a business
trip or attending a convention. Fifty-eight per cent were staying for less
than three nights, and 30 per cent for more than three nights. Sixty per
cent were male, none of the sample was below 26 years of age and
the mean age was 38. As might be expected, incomes were above the
average, and 42 per cent earned more than C$50,000 p.a.; 59 per cent had
university or post-graduate qualifications. Thirty per cent of the respon-
dents came from outside western Canada. While the sample was skewed
towards business users because of convention business, no reason arose
in conversation with the hotel management to believe that the sample was
in any way unusual, except that there was possibly an over-representation
of guests identifying themselves as being members of large groups. This
did emerge as being of possible marginal importance. Because of the
number of business users the researchers were concerned that past
experience would be an important influence in shaping expectations. In
the creation of SERVQUAL Parasuraman, ZeithamI and Berry [1988]
comment that past experience is important in forming informed percep-
tion of the service. In applying the questionnaire it did not seem that
degrees of past use were in fact determinants of differences in expecta-
tion, but this is a factor that requires closer examination at some future
date.

DATA ANALYSIS
The first question that needs to be asked is whether or not the structure
of the test was correctly designed, that is, to calculate its reliability
coefficient (alpha). Cronbach [1951] describes this as 'demonstrat(ing)
332 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL
whether the test designer was correct in expecting a certain collection of
items to yield interpretable statements about individual differences'.
Therefore the cohesiveness of the dimensions needed to be assessed, and
was done by measuring the ratio of the variance of the sub-test scores to
item scores. This thus indicates what proportion of the variance is due to
common factors among the sub-tests.
A second characteristic is the item-to-total correlation. A low correla-
tion would imply that the item has a negligible relationship to the dimen-
sion score, while a high correlation shows a strong, and perhaps skewed
relationship to the dimension in question. Both tests were run on the
guests' and management responses. Appendix 2 indicates the results.
Comparing the alpha coefficients to those described by Peters 11979] in
his review of internal reliability tests of studies using Likert Scales the
reliability scores compared closely. Equally the item-to-total correlations
were found to have moderate values without any sharp drops, and it can
therefore be concluded that the five dimensions can be presumed to form
distinct categories, and thus the design structure possessed validity. It can
be noted that for the management's response the total test reliability was
estimated at 0.74, that is, the sum of the five factors' variances when
compared to the total survey's variance, 'explain' 74 per cent of the total
variance.
It should also be noted that in the case of guests the initial alpha scores
for the dimensions, tangibles and reliability, were quite low at 0.4260 and
0.5444 respectively. This implied that from the guests' viewpoint there
was no distinguishable difference between the two elements. To some
extent this therefore re-emphasises the point that hotel guests view both
tangibles and reliability as, in the nomenclature of Gronroos [1984],
technical components of the service, and thus separate from the com-
ponents that determine the expressive, convivial component of service,
which is itself more subtle. Subsequently this subtle component lends
itself to the distinctions of responsiveness, assurance and empathy.
From the viewpoint of management, however, tangibles and the perfor-
mance of function are identifiable separate items. The findings are
thus consistent with past research. When, with the guests' sample, the
tangibles and reliability scores are collapsed into one, the result is an
alpha coefficient of 0.7442.
Parasuraman, ZeithamI and Berry also suggest means of assessing
perception and expectation scores, and cross-tabulating these with demo-
graphic factors. Expectation scores were simply the arithmetic mean of
all respondents, while two methods exist of scoring perceptions. The first
is to find the difference between the expectation of service score and the
perception of service delivery score for each question, and then find the
SERVICE QUALITY IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY 333

mean difference for each respondent. The second is to find the mean
perception score, and then categorise the sample into groupings of high-,
medium- and low-perception guests. There was no correlation between
any of the twelve demographic measures and expectation. The only
variable that related to perception was party size. It seemed that the
larger the party, the greater was the likelihood that there would exist a
difference between expectations of the guest, and the perceptions of the
service received. It is suspected that this might be implying something
about group dynamics!
The findings prompted a further literature review to assess whether
these results had been previously reported. Certainly within marketing
literature as a whole it is not difficult to find proponents of the view that
demographics are poor predictors of consumer attitudes and behaviour,
and in a specific reference to services Lewis [1984] confirms this view and
proceeds to state that demographics are not predictive of hotel selection.

GAP ANALYSIS

This was undertaken by two methods, the first being to look at each of the
33 questions, while the second was on the basis of the five dimensions.

Gap L ~ Management s perceptions of guests' expectations against guests'

expectations
The results concur with the findings of Lewis and Klein [1987] in that for
the most part management are able to anticipate guests' expectations. On
19 of the 33 items the differences between management scores and guests'
scores were not significant. Management tended to over-estimate guests'
expectations; on 14 of the 33 items there was a significant difference, and
in all cases management over-estimated guests' expectation. Indeed, the
level of overestimation was so great on the items concerned that it meant
that on each of the five dimensions management in fact overestimated the
guests' expectations.

Gap 2. - Guest expectations and guest perceptions of service delivery

The evidence would appear to show that guests feel that the service
actually provided falls short of that expected. Furthermore, at least for
this sample, the failure to meet consumer expectations was consistent
across each of the indiviudal items of the questionnaire, and hence across
each of the dimensions. Furthermore, the gap between expectation and
perceived service was in all cases significant at the 0.01 level of probability
for all 33 items on the list. In view of the previous finding that in the case
334 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL

TABLE 2
GAP BETWEEN MANAGEMENT PERCEPTION OF GUEST
EXPECTATION. AND RECORDED GUEST EXPECTATION

Mean score Mean score

Dimension for for
management guest T-test Difference
perception expectation
(1) (2) (1-2)
Tangibles 1.349 1.450 ns -0.101
Reliability 1.240 1.418 0.10 -0.178
Responsiveness 1.465 1.774 0.01 -0.309
Assurance 1.403 1.623 0.05 -0.220
Empathy 1.452 1.817 0.01 -0.365
Sample size 17 200

TABLE 3
THE GAP BETWEEN CONSUMER EXPECTATION AND PERCEIVED
SERVICE PROVISION

Dimension Consumer Consumer Difference

expectation perception T-test
0) (2) (1-2)
Tangibles 1.450 1.768 .01 -0.318
Reliability 1.418 2.118 .01 -0.700
Responsiveness 1.774 2.278 .01 -504
Assurance 1.623 1.971 .01 -0.348
Empathy 1.817 2.272 .01 -0.455
Sample size 200 200

of this particular hotel the management did in fact overestimate con-

sumer expectation it is perhaps surprising to find this latter result. It could
be argued that the overestimation of guests' expectations should lead to
management providing a serviee that meets their needs.

Gap. 3 - Management Perception of service delivery and guests'

perception of service delivery.
The position is thus one where management overestimates guests' expec-
tations, while guests find that their expectations are not in fact being met.
 SERVICE QUALITY IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY 335

TABLE 4
THE GAP BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND GUESTS' PERCEPTION OF THE
QUALITY OF SERVICE PROVISION

Dimension Managenient Guests"

perception perception T-test Difference
(1) (21 (1-2)
Tangibles 2.135 1.768 .01 4-0.367
Reliability 2.056 2.118 ns -0.062
Responsiveness 2.194 2.278 ns -0.084
Assurance 2.118 1.971 ns -1-0.147
Empathy 2.183 2.272 ns -0.089
Sample size 17 200

T h e gap between management perception, and guest perception of the

service is, however, a gap between the evaluation of the actual service
by both m a n a g e m e n t and staff. A small gap implies a congruence of
perceived reality, an accommodation by both m a n a g e m e n t and staff to
the 'reality' of service provision. Any significant gap between these two
variables indicates therefore a serious m a n a g e m e n t misjudgement of
the situation. Lewis and Klein [1987] report that on 29 of 44 variables
management held the view that they delivered a service that was d e e m e d
to be good, whereas in fact guests had scored the services lower than
management. In the case of this research, management scored 15 items
higher than the guests, and in seven of the variables the difference was
statistically significant. In the remainder of the 33 items, guests scored
the items higher than m a n a g e m e n t , with six recording a significant
difference. Within the dimensions, the differences tended to equal each
other out, so that as Table 5 records, in only o n e of the dimensions was
the difference significant, and that was in the tangibles where guests rated
the quality of service provision higher than the m a n a g e m e n t .
This would therefore seem to imply that for this particular hotel there
was an overall congruence between guests and management perception
of the quality of service being provided albeit on separate items some
differences did exist.

Gap 4. - Management perception of service and guests' expectation.

From the foregoing discussion, it becomes obvious that m a n a g e m e n t
perceptions of the service as delivered will also be significantly below the
guests' original expectation of the service before their arrival at the hotel.
This in fact proves to be the case as is illustrated on the five dimensions in
336 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL

TABLE 5
GAP BETWEEN MANAGEMENT PERCEPTION OF DELIVERED
SERVICE AND GUESTS' EXPECTATIONS

Dimension Management Guests'

perception expectation T-test Difference
of service of service
(I) (2) (1-2)

Tangibles 2.135 1.450 .01 +0.685

Reliability 2.056 1.418 .01 +0.638
Responsiveness 2.194 1.774 .01 +0.420
Assurance 2.11S 1.623 .01 +0.495
Empathy 2.183 1,817 .01 +0.365
Sample size 17 200

Table 6. The question that thus arises is what does this actually mean?
From the marketing viewpoint and the development of promotional
literature it would seem to imply that management are, as indicated
above, reasonably congruent with guest perception of services, but the
management perception of the service is possibly being translated into
marketing messages that lead guests to expect more than they perceive
they actually receive. Yet there are problems in interpeting the evidence.
If guests are experiencing this gap between expectation and perception,
why should they continue to return to the hotel? Arguably location is
important, and other factors play a role such as company policies that use
specific chains of hotels for reasons of acquiring discounts, etc. If, how-
ever, guests do possess prior knowledge of the hotel, why do they retain
the gap between expectation and perception? On the face of it, it implies
a rather slow learning process on the part of guests! Perhaps frequency of
trip is a factor, and that as the guest returns to a hotel after the passage of
time, they once again hope 'for the best' - literally. The study did not ask
questions about the source of information in the creation of guest percep-
tion, and this is obviously a task for future research.
Associated with this gap is management perception of guests' expecta-
tion and management's perception of service delivery. The logic of the
above discussion leads one to suppose that as management overestimates
guests' expectations, yet is reasonably congruent with the guests^ percep-
tions of the service - which are below expectation - then the conclusion
must be that management is involved in a process whereby they are aware
SERVICE OUALITY IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY 337

TABLE 6
GAP BETWEEN MANAGEMENT'S PERCEPTION OF GUESTS-
EXPECTATIONS AND MANAGEMENT'S PERCEPTION OF SERVICE DELIVERY

Perception Perception T-test Difference

of guests' of serviee
expeclations delivery
(1) (2) (1-2)
Tangibles 1.349 2.135 .01 -0.786
Reliability 1.240 2.056 .01 -0.816
Responsiveness 1.465 2.194 .01 -0.729
Assurance 1.403 2.118 .01 -0.715
Empathy 1.452 2.183 .01 -0.731
Sample size 17 17

of the provision of a service which is thought not to meet customer wants.

Again the research is raising a question not originally considered at the
stage of the design of the research instrument, since the original concern
was with management's perception of guests' expectations and manage-
ment's perception of service delivery.

ASSESSMENT OF FINDINGS AND METHOD

As previously reported the study had various objectives - to assess

whether gaps did exist between sets of expectations and perceptions of
both management and hotel guests, and to assess the validity of the
measure of what might be termed the conviviality within a service. In
doing so the researchers adopted the SERVQUAL model. It has been
noted that the internal structure of the research design had apparent
reliability in terms of alpha coefficients that were consistent with similar
studies using Likert scales. Another form of test would be to see whether
or not a factor analysis of the responses to the 33 items generated 5
clusters, inasmuch as the questionnaire was based on the concept of the
five dimensions identified by Parasuraman, ZeithamI and Berry [1985].
Because of the small size of the management sample the teehnique was
inappropriate for that response set but with 200 guests responding, the
sample size met the general guideline that 'there should be ten times as
many subjects as items or, in cases with a large number of items, at least
338 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL

TABLE 7
FACTOR ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Factor Variables Cumulative

explained percentage
Conviviality 20.10 62.S2'%>
Tangibles 2.22 69.77%
Reassurance 1.08 73.18%
Avoid Sarcasm 0.88 75.91%
Empathy 0.85 78.577,.

five subjects per item' [Nunnally, 1967). The results are indicated in
Table 7.
Thus the newly created structure had a cumulative percentage of only
1.57 per cent higher than the original reliability coefficient of 77 per cent.
However, a very unequal distribution of factors resulted, with factor 1
accounting for 62.82 per cent of the total variance. Also, it must be noted
that a mean of 80 per cent of items 9-32 composed what became factor 1.
The explanatory power of the final four factors is correspondingly weak.
In a sense the results are disappointing. Usually factor analysis is used to
identify the underlying common factors (themes, descriptions) that
create a commonality from an apparent disparate grouping of responses.
In this case the SERVOUAL model is based on the reverse, i.e., a series
of questions relating to five common dimensions are generated. The
researchers initially assumed that the factor analysis would confirm the
five dimensions, but this failed to be the case. It is suggested that two
possible reasons for this can be easily identified. The first reason is that
there might have been a problem with the questionnaire in terms of the
construction of the five-point Likert Scale. This is the familiar one of how
to cope with the non-response to the question. That is, there is a dif-
ference between a non-response based on the respondent stating they are
not in a position to express an opinion because of lack of experience,
previous thought or some similar reason, and a respondent stating that
they neither agree nor disagree with the statement because they are
genuinely indifferent. Both responses were scored as a 3 on the scale.
This was done simply because the initial research using the SERVOUAL
model adopted such an approach. In practice it did mean that at least for
some respondents on some items there was a misrepresentation of their
opinion. Attempts to utilise data involving scores of only 1, 2, 4 and
SERVICE QUALITY IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY 339

5 were not, however, more successful though this is not thought to have
been the major cause. The second obvious reason is that perhaps the
questions are not valid interpreters of the dimensions concerned. In this
respect the researchers have spent time among themselves discussing the
validity of the questions selected to assess the tangible aspects of the
service. The factor analysis shows that the questions relating to the
tangibles explained little of the variance, and arguably for a four-star
hotel such as that used for a chentele orientated towards business users,
the result is not surprising if a threshold hypothesis is advanced. By this it
is meant that the tangibles are in effect taken for granted, and the guests'
criteria of service shifts to the components the researchers perceived as
forming the degree of conviviality of the service. From this viewpoint it
would be argued that if the tangibles were lacking, they would then be
deemed more important.
However, the factor analysis did confirm the initial calculation of the
alpha coefficients, in that the factor analysis separated the physical com-
ponents of the tangibles from what might be termed as the expressive
component of the service as indicated by tangibles, something that the
researchers had attempted to incorporate in the questionnaire, but from
these results, not entirely successfully. The factor of 'conviviality' thus
represents a mixture of questions drawn from the dimensions of tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness and assurance.
This is not to say that the research was without value. From the
viewpoint of the individual items and the issues they raised for the
management of the hotel concerned, the concepts and problems were
real. Equally, the researchers hope that this application of SERVQUAL
to the hotel industry will be of help to others in formulating research into
the issue of hotel services and the measurement of their quality, percep-
tions of management and hotel guests, and to assess the validity of the
concept of conviviality within services. The study is now being followed
up by another in another hotel in which it is hoped to examine the issue of
service quality by the use of a multi-attribute model.

The authors would like to thank Gerard Merkosky and Wendy Welte, University of
Saskatchewan, for help in undertaking the interviews and data preparation, and for their
part in the discussion of the results and their opinions. Needless to say, the authors assume
full responsibility for the opinions and ideas expressed in the article.
340 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL

APPENDIX l(a)
MEAN SCORES ON ATTRIBUTES

Attributes Means
Tangibles A 1B C D
1

1. Well dressed and neat 1.50 1,94 1,59 1,36

2. Have up-to-date equipment 1.17 2, 23 1,74 1,53
4. Exhibit good manners L44 2, 56 1,72 1,26
5. Show enthusiasm at work 1.16 2.17 1,94 1,56
6. Smile at work 1.50 2. 17 1.84 1,57
Avoid chewing gum 1,11 1.94 2-19 1.83
9, Not offensive/sarcastic 1.17 2. 28 1.6H i .22
Reliability
3. Supportive 1,22 1, 33 2,26 1-42
10. Dependable 1,39 1,83 1,86 1,42
12. Service when promised 1.28 2 17 2,n 1,39
Responsiveness
8. Helpful even while busy 1.17 2, (HI 2,19 1,83
11, Inform about service 1.67 2-11 2,38 1,73
13. Check guest satisfaction 1.50 2. 33 2.35 I ,98
14. Greet guests a.s.a.p, 1,44 2. (K) 2,18 i
m
15. Prompt service 1,44 2..22 2.02 1-51
Solve complaints Ml 2..17 2,36 1,57
17. Cater services to guests 1,56 2. U 2,15 1.7(1
18. Inform about activities 1,72 2..33 2,64 1,^6
Assurance
19. Trustworthy 1.39 1.,83 1,94 I ,33
20. Polite to guests 1.28 1-72 1.64 ! 29
21. Communicate with guests 1.28 1.67 1-77 1,55
22. Kind and cordial tone 1,50 1.67 1-67 I .54
23- Advise undecided guests 1,89 2 .44 2,55 2 .05
25, Knowledgeable 1,22 2 ,06 2,21 1,79
29. Don't narrate problems 1,44 2 ,22 1,88 1,63
1 ,8(i
30. Communicate with staff 1,33 2 ,00 2,12
Empathy
24, Individual treatment l,2S 2 ,56 2,!4 ! ,90
26, Anticipate guests' needs 1.39 3 ,00 2,39 2 ,05
27, Conscientious 1,50 2 ,28 1,97 1,61
28, Respect guests L44 2 ,33 I,K7 1,43
31. Serve individual needs 1-50 2 ,17 2,-'^0 2 ,00
32. Address guests by name 1-67 2 ,44 2,86 2 ,47
33. Individual attention i-28 1,94 2,43 1,65

A = Management perceptions of guest expectations

B = Management perceptions of hotel service delivery
C = Guests' perception of quality of service
D = Guests' expectations of service
Scale: 1 = highly satisfied to 5 - highly dissatisfied
 SERVICE QUALITY IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY 341

APPENDIX l(b)
T-TESTS OF MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GAPS
Attributes AD CD BC BD AB
Tangibles
1. Well dressed and neat ** ' ""
2. Have up-to-date equipment * , , *
4. Exhibit good manners . * *
5. Show enthusiasm at work *
6. Smile at work * *** * *
7. Avoid chewing gum ** * .
9, Not offensive/sarcastic * * , ,
Reliability
3. Supportive * *
10. Dependable ' * '*
12. Service when promised ' *
Responsiveness
8. Helpful even while busy ' * *
11. Inform about service *
13. Check guest satisfaction ** * *" *
14. Greet guests a.s.a.p. . . . * ,,
15. Prompt service * * *
16. Solve complaints . , * .
Cater services to guests * . **
18. Inform about activities * ** ..
Assurance
19. Trustworthy ' ' **
20. Polite to guests * * *
21. Communicate with guests * **
22. Kind and cordial tone *
23. Advise undecided guests * ** "-
25. Knowledgeable . * ,
29. Don't narrate problems * **' * *
30. Communicate with staff * * *
Empathy
24. Individual treatment * * .. , .
26. Anticipate guests' needs * * * . ,
27- Conscientious * *"" *
28. Respect guests * . . *
31. Serve individual needs * . ,.
32. Address guests by name ' * '* **
33. Individual attention * . . * . .

AD = gap between management perceptions of guest expectations and guest expectations,

CD = gap between guests' perceptions and expectations
BC = gap between management perceptions of hotel service delivery and guests perceptions of
service delivery.
BD = gap between management perception of hotel service delivery and guests' expectations.
AD = gap between management perceptions of guest expectations and management perception of
hotel's service delivery.
* T-test two-tail probability of 0,01
" T-test two-tail probability of 0,01
* T-test two-tail probability of 0,10
342 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL

APPENDIX 2(a)

Test results of survey's internal reliability

Guest responses {sample size ^ 200)

Dimension No. Item to Alpha
of items dimension coefficient
correlation
Tangibles and Reliability 10 .4852 .7442
.3872
.471S
.5156
-5244
-4891
.4314
.4830
-5145
-5280

Responsiveness 8 .5326 .9279

.5060
.5761
,4176
,6021
,4825
,5591
.5042
Assurance 8 -3759 ,8709
-5097
.5539
.5072
,3735
,4534
,4406
,3611
Empathy 6 -4685 ,8565
.5944
-3201
.3690
.4595
.4380
Total test 32 7700

Note\ one item on empathy dimension was removed in the guest sample to
improve scores.
SERVICE OUALITY IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY 343

APPENDIX 2(b)

Test results of survey's internal reliability

Management responses (sample size = 18)
Dimension No. Item to Alpha
of items dimension coefficient
correlation
Tangibles 7 .3736 .7342
.6347
.5921
.4249
,6442
.7358
.4335
Reliability .6289 .5028
.6926
.7345
Responsiveness 8 .5855 .7545
-6980
,5788
.3666
.5770
.5451
.5741
.4617
Assurance 8 ,3235 .7950
.8391
.7429
.5364
.7612
.6022
.6236
.4781
Empathy 7 -6378 .7901
.7410
.7596
.5873
.6724
-5776
.7149
Total test 33 .7415
344 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL

REFERENCES
Alpert, Mark, 1971, identification of Determinant Attributes: A Comparison of Methods.
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, May.
Atkinson, Ann, 1988, 'What Does the Customer Want?', The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2, August,
Bitner, Jo Mary, B-H. Blooms and M.S- Tetreault, 1990, T h e Service Encounter:
Diagnosing Favourable and Unfavourable Incidents', Journal of Marketing. Vol- 54.
January.
Bjorklund, R. and B. King, 1982, A Consumer Based Approach to Assist in the Design of
Hotels', Journal of Travel Research, Vol. XX. No.4, Spring.
Blomstrom, Robert L,, 1983, Strategic Marketing Planning in the Hospitality Industry, East
Lansing, MI: Educational Institute of the American Hotel & Motel Association,
Cadotte, Ernest R., and Normand Turgeon, 1988, 'Key Factors in Guest Satisfaction", The
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol, 28, No.4, February.
Churchill, Gilbert A. Jr., 1979, 'A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, February,
Cronbach, Lee J-. 1951, 'Coefficient Alpha And The Internal Structure of Tests'. Psycho-
metrika. Vol. 16, No.3, September.
Darden, William R. and W . D . Perreault, Jr,, 1975, 'A Multivariate Analysis of Media
Exposure and Vacation Behaviour with Lifestyle Covariates', Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol, 2, September.
Darden, William R. and W . D . Perreault, Jr., 1976, identifying Interurban Shoppers:
Multiproduct Purchase Patterns and Segmentation Profiles'. Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 13, February,
Knutson, Bonnie J., 1988, 'Frequent Travellers: Making Them Happy and Bringing Them
Back', The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1
Lehtinen, Uolvei and Jarmo R. Lehtinen, 1982, 'Service Quality: A Study of Quality
Dimensions', unpublished, Helsinki: Service Management Institute,
Lewis, Robert C , 1983 'When Guests Complain', The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 24, No-2 August.
Lewis, Robert C-, 1983, 'Part 1 of a Series: Getting the Most from Marketing Research,
The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. Vol, 24, No, 3, November,
Lewis, Robert C , 1984, 'Getting the Most from Marketing Research, Part il: Theoretical
and Practical Considerations in Research Design', The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 24, No.4, February.
Lewis, Robert C, 1984, 'Getting the Most from Marketing Research, Part III: The Basis of
Hotel Selection'. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol, 25,
No, 1, May.
Lewis, Robert C , 1984, "Getting the Most from Marketing Research, Part IV: Isolating
Differences in Hotel Attributes', The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, Vol, 25, No.3, November.
Lewis, Robert, C , 1985, 'Getting the Most from Marketing Research, Part V: Predicting
Hotel Choice: The Factors Underlying Perception', The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 25, No.4, February,
Lewis, Robert, C , 1985, 'Getting the Most from Marketing Research, Part VI: The Market
SERVICE QUALITY IN THE HQSPITALITY INDUSTRY 345

Position: Mapping Guests' Perceptions of Hotel Qperations', The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol, 26, No, 2, August,
Lewis, Robert C , and David M. Klein, 1987, 'The Measurement of Gaps In Service
Quality', in The Services Challenge: Integrating For Competitive Advantage, John A.
Czepiel, Carole A. Congram, and James Shanahan (eds), Chicago: American Market-
ing Association.
Lewis, Robert C, and Abraham Pizam, 1981. 'Guest Surveys: A Missed Qpportunity', The
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 22, No, 3, November.
Martin, William B., 1986, Quality Service, The Restaurant Manager's Bible, US: Brodock
Press.
Moller, K. E. Kristian, Jarmo R. Lehtinen, Gunnar Rosenquist and Kaj Storbacka, 1985,
'Segmenting Hotel Business Customers: A Benefit Clustering Approach', in Services
Marketing in a Changing Environment. Thomas M- Bloch, Gregory D. Upah and
Valerie A, Zeitbaml (eds), Chicago: American Marketing Association,
Moschis, George P., 1976, 'Social Comparison and Informal Group Influences' Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 13, August,
Myers, James H. and Mark I, Alpert 1968, 'Determinant Buying Attitudes: Meaning and
MensmemenV, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol, 32, Qctober.
Nigbtingale, Michael, 1985, 'The Hospitality Industry: Defining Quality for a Quality
Assurance Programme - A Study of Perceptions, The Service Industries Journal Vol. 5,
No.l.
Nunnally, Jim C . 1967, Psychometric Theory New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Saleh F., and C. A, Ryan, 1990, 'An Analysis of Service Quality in the Hospitality Industry
- Utilising the Servquai ModeF, Tourism Research into the 1990s University of Durham
Conference Papers, December,
Qverail, John E. and C. James Klett. 1972, Applied Multivariate Analysis, New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Parasuraman, A., Valerie A. ZeithamI and Leonard L, Berry 1985, 'A Conceptual Model
of Service Ouality and Its Implications for Future RcstarcK, Journal of Marketing. Vol.
49, No.4, Fall,
Peters, Paul J, 1979, 'Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing
Practices', Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. 16, No, 1, February,
Phillips, S. et. al., 1990, 'King Customer, Business Week, 12 March.
Ryan, Michael J. and J. Paul Peter, 1976, "Two Operational Modifications for Improving
the Delineation of Attitudinal and Social Influences on Purchase Intentions', in Market-
ing: 1776-1976 and Beyond, K. Bernhardt, (ed,), Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Trice, Ashton D. and Walter Layman 1984, 'Improving Guest Surveys', The Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 25, No.3, November.
ZeithamI, Valerie A., 1988, 'Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-
End Model and Syntbesis of Evidence', Journal of Marketing. Voi. 52, No.3, July.
ZeithamI, Valerie A,, Leonard L Berry and A. Parasuraman 1988 'Communication and
Controi Processes in the Delivery of Serviee Quality', Journal of Marketing, VoL 52,
No-2, April,
The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate.